in South and Eastern Europe

3 Social Anthropology during socialism and postsocialism in South and Eastern Europe Georgia Sarikoudi Adjunct Lecturer of Panteio University

Corespondence: e-mail: gsarikoudi@yahoo.gr

Abstract

The purpose of this article is not to constitute a detailed review of the ethnographies produced in South and Eastern Europe, but to give the general framework and approaches of the topics that have taken place over the years and how the political and social changes affected the development of social anthropology.

Keywords:

social anthropology, socialism, postsocialism. Citation: Sarikoudi G. Social Anthropology during socialism and postsocialism in South and Eastern Europe. Theology & Culture. 2020; 1(2): 43-53. Doi: 10.13140/RG.2.2.30698.54722

Introduction

Social Anthropology in most Southern and Eastern European countries (with the exception of Poland) had not developed as an academic science until the mid-1990s (Vesna 2002: 3-5). The study of everyday life and the manifestations of popular culture had different names in each country; in the Soviet Union it was called “Ethnography” (“Etnografyja”), in Germany “Ethnology” (“Völkerkunde”) and “Folklore” (“Volkskunde”), in Bulgaria “Folklore” (“фолклор”), in Albania “Ethnography” (“Etnografi”), in Romania “Ethnology” (“Etnologie”), in Croatia “Ethnology” (“Narodoznanstvo”) and in Czechoslovakia “Ethnography” (“Narodopis”). Despite the differences in names, however, with the exception of the German “Ethnology” (“Völkerkunde”), the objects of the studies were quite common; they were the cultural characteristics and rural traditions of the individual peoples and nations (Vesna, 2002, p. 1-2). However, it would be dangerous to deal these countries as a homogenous group without taking into consideration the its sociopolitical and cultural characteristics that influences the development of academic sciences.

1. Socialist approaches and approaches to socialism

These branches (Folklore, Ethnology, Ethnography) developed in the 18th and 19th centuries and contributed to the formation of distinct identities of ethnic groups living in multinational empires (Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, Russian). Folklorists, ethnologists and ethnographers, influenced by the Romantic movement, sought elements of the traditional past, which still existed in the countryside, in order to make them the foundations of the national consciousness (Kyriakidou-Nestoros, 1978, p. 30-31). Researchers, therefore, turned to the study of popular - rural - culture and traditions, because they considered them to be representative components of the national culture, history and memory of a nation (Hann, 2005, p. 6-7). These researchers believed that the values and symbols of the nation were hidden in the rural world and popular culture and waited to be discovered to help awaken the consciences of ethnic groups1 and the struggle of peoples for independence. Their goal was 1 The term ethnic group was first used in the 1950s in American Sociology. The reason for the appearance of this term lies in the social changes of post-war societies, which induced changes in the subject of Anthropology. The mobility of immigrant groups and the abolition of colonialism brought about changes and new social realities, the description of which required the use of new terms (Angelopoulos, 1997, p. 18-19). The study of Fredrik Barth (1969), Ethnic Group and Boundaries, on which all subsequent approaches to the term were

to construct a popular socialist culture that would contribute to the building of socialism.

The orientation of these sectors changed after the end of World War II. With the victory of the Red Army, the Soviet socialist model of government gradually prevailed in the countries of Eastern Europe and induced changes in the political, economic and cultural spheres. In this context, the study of popular culture was considered dangerous, because it emphasized the particular characteristics of individual nations and, thus, it was marginalized. The countries that adopted the political principals of existing socialism had as a priority to create the feeling that all citizens, regardless of their nationality, are members of the socialist whole, rather than to cultivate national consciences. Therefore, Folklore, Ethnology and Ethnography had to follow the directions of historical materialism and serve the principles of Marxism-Leninism (Tishkov, 1992, p. 373). Their aim was to awaken the working class and stimulate the proletarian consciousness.

As Chris Hann, Mihály Sarkany and Peter Skalník point out, the studies of Soviet ethnographers were little known in the academic circles of Eastern European countries before the war. After the prevalence of existing socialism in them, however, these studies were translated into the language of each country, so that local researchers could get acquainted with the principles of Soviet Ethnography and adapt to them (Hann, Sarkany, Skalník, 2005, p. 1213). The purpose of socialist ethnographers was to study everyday life and the manifestations of civilization within a specific historical context and to prove the evolution represented by the regime of existing socialism (Petrova-Averkieva, 1980, p. 19). In other words, the folklore and ethnographic studies concerned the comparison of the way of life and the customs before and after the predominance of socialism with the aim of promoting socialism as a higher stage of development. Contrary to Western Europe and the USA, in the Soviet Union evolutionary theory remained strong, at least in its Marxist version.

The standards of Soviet Ethnography were followed by most of the coun-

based, contributed to the spread of the concept of ethnic group. According to Barth, an ethnic identity is the result of the relationship between “us” and “them”. What matters, he says, are the boundaries and processes that define ethnic groups and their identities, as their characteristics are not fixed and unchanged, but are shaped each time according to the occasion. Individuals rely on these differences to express their difference. Talal Asad (1972) criticized Barth’s theory, arguing that it does not take into account the dynamics of power and the inequalities it creates. According to Brackette Williams (1989), the use of this term refers to populations that are on the margins (either geographically or socially) of the developed world and contribute to their identification with groups called “minorities”.

tries of Southern and Eastern Europe. After all, alignment with these directions was a precondition for claiming funding from the Research Academy and the Ethnology Institute of each country. In other words, “politics shaped the fate of Anthropology in socialist Eastern and Central Europe” (Hann, Sárkány, Skalník, 2005, p. 9). In this context, the study of minorities (ethnic or religious) had no place, while the prospects for research in other countries were almost non-existent. A few exceptions were some Soviet group missions to India, Vietnam and Cuba (Tishkov, 1992, p. 375). Most of the ethnological or ethnographic research conducted in Eastern European countries was made by “local” researchers. Their contacts with their colleagues from Western countries were largely limited due to the Cold War climate. The fact that indigenous researchers wrote in their own language exacerbated the problem of lack of contact and communication between scientists. In addition, foreign (mostly British and American) ethnographers were excluded from socialist countries, with the exception of Hungary and Romania. A typical example is Czechoslovakia, to which no foreign researcher has been able to go. However, the local ethnographers-ethnologists themselves also faced problems in conducting research. Censorship, lack of funding and favoritism towards certain thematic categories were the main problems they had to deal with.

2. “Transition”

In 1989 the socialist regime in the countries of South and Eastern Europe collapsed and the political, economic and social changes that followed paved the way for shifts within the scientific and academic space. European and American scientists from all scientific branches now had the opportunity to visit former socialist countries. Similarly, researchers from Eastern Europe could travel to the West and establish contacts with their colleagues there. EASA (European Association of Social Anthropologists) was established and organized its first conference in 1991 in Portugal. The proceedings were published in a collected volume Socialism. Ideals, Ideologies and Local Practice, edited by Chris Hann. The difference of this work from the previous ones is that it covers a wide geographical and thematic area (four texts on socialism in Africa, three on Asia, two on non-capitalist societies in the Amazon and on hunters-gatherers in South Africa, one on socialism in the Soviet Union, five on Eastern European countries and one on socialism in England). According to Martha Lampland (1995, p. 623) the element that connects these articles is the emphasis on the empirical analysis of socialism as a social and cultural

practice. Steven Sampson in his article “Is there an Anthropology Today?” (1991, p. 2-3) recognizes the importance of the collective volume, but notes that the book should have been organized into thematic rather than geographical sections and points out the absence of studies about the internal structure of the political parties, the emergence of nationalism in Yugoslavia and the failure of socialism in countries like the United States.

The use of terms such as “socialism”, “post-socialism”, “(former) countries of the Eastern bloc”, “iron curtain”, “capitalist West”, by “Westerners” and “non-Western” researchers shows that despite the political changes that took place, the divisive line between the “liberal camp” and its counterweight still existed. Moreover, classifying each individual country under the same category, these terms indirectly mask the differences between them as well as the heterogeneity within each one.

Οn the other hand, individual countries are grouped together according to the assessment that all of them are in a stage of “transition” from a centrally designed collectivization to a market economy and privatization. As Peter Skalník states (2002) in the theory of transition is hidden the view that in the socialist countries the growth had stopped and these societies remained stagnant only to return to a course of development after the fall of the socialist regimes. From this point of view, the socialist period is considered something like a temporary “break”, which ended with the return of these societies to a trajectory that had been stopped. Katherine Verdery (1996) describes this theory as “deep freeze theory” (see also Angelopoulos, 2003). Verdery argues that in order to understand the “transition” to a new type of society, one must know how the previous regime worked, that is, to get rid of the prejudice that the socialist period was a big gap. The question, then, of the “transition” from existing socialism to a regime of liberal democracy monopolized the interest of researchers.

One book that has contributed a lot to this discussion is Uncertain Transition. Ethnographies of Change in the Postsocialist World, edited by Michael Burawoy and Katherine Verdery (1999). The introduction points out that the peculiarity of the authors’ approach lies in the fact that it highlights the complex relations between the socialist and post-socialist worlds, as well as the influences of the past on the present. As the editors argued, the issue of transition cannot be considered as part of a prescribed and smooth evolutionary process; on the contrary, the process of transition is a synthesis of many different policies and practices. In other words, the transition has no roots in

the past, but also does not foretell a given future. It is an uncertain process, in which new rules and rights are involved with old values (Buravoy and Verdery, 1999, p. 14).

Therefore, another question that arises is where ends the supposed transition. According to Humphrey (2002), the term postsocialism is an academic construction, which, however, is useful, at least until the discussion of the legacy of existing socialism is exhausted. Changes in post-socialist societies are neither simple nor one-dimensional. In many cases, citizens express a desire to go “back” or at least not to abandon some of the values of socialism. However, as Humphrey points out, as the generations born and raised in the era of socialism disappear, so the term will decline until it disappears (Humphrey, 2002, p. 12-14). Daphne Berdahl, in the introduction to Altering States (2000), also expresses the view that the term “post-socialism” is a problematic construction, pointing out that there are not only differences but also similarities between the socialist and post-socialist periods.

3. Notes on Social Anthropology of Post-socialism

The contact of the “socialist ethnographers” with Western scientists and the open access of foreign scientists to the countries of Eastern Europe brought new orientations to the Academies, Institutes and Universities. The need for change, according to Tishkov, was not only due to external factors, nor to the prestige represented by Western standards, but also to the need for academics and researchers to abandon the historical or rather evolutionary orientation that prevailed in the context. of Marxist-Leninist ideology (Tishkov, 1992, p. 373).

The first change was institutional and concerned the renaming of the Departments of Ethnography to Departments of Social Anthropology. The change served the effort of the universities to move away from the purposes that the social sciences served in the era of existing socialism (Vesna, 2002, p. 13). As Abrahamian, a researcher at the National Academy of Armenia, characteristically comments, university officials believed that changing the names would magically drive away the problems of science and its past (Tishkov, 1992, p. 382). Changes in a discipline’s name, however, do not necessarily reflect or engender predictable changes in methodological and theoretical orientations (Doja, 2013; Kodra-Hysa, 2013).

Academies, meanwhile, began funding projects that raised new questions

about memory, identity, gender, and sexuality, issues that had not previously been the subject of ethnographic research in Eastern Europe. This change did not take place overnight, of course, but it lasted a decade and was often the cause of conflict. The emergence of a new research agenda, however, was intended to highlight the complexity of these societies, as well as to end the generalizations that presented these countries as a static homogeneous group. As mentioned before, the rural area was the main subject of the ethnographers during socialism. Such monographs constituted research topic even after 1989, but with some differences. One project that deals with the issue of transition and examines the role that the past plays in the relations of the inhabitants of a village (Talpa) with the State is Who Owns the Past? The Politics of Time in a ‘Model’ Bulgarian Village (2004) by Deema Kaneff. The book focuses on the importance that the past acquires in the legitimation of state power and in the establishment of relations not only within the village, but also between the village and the state. The author refers to an eloquent incident that occurred during the proclamation of Talpa as a “model” village, that is, a village that had managed to fulfill the state plan for the construction of a socialist community. At a socialist event like this, the authorities awarded prizes to the villagers for their contribution. Who would receive the awards and why they were awarded was the subject of intense debate among the village administration, as Party members wanted the awards to have a political extension. In addition to the awards, however, the state also intervened in the organization of various traditional ceremonies. According to Kaneff, traditional events highlighted the diversity of places and ethnicities, which the socialist government did not like, trying to homogenize the various traditional ceremonies in folklore. Participation in these events enabled the villagers to declare their faith in socialist ideology and thus seek access to sources of power. With the fall of socialism, the influence of the state on local issues began to decline, which had implications for all aspects of social life (economic, administrative, cultural). In addition, privatization and the lack of state funding have weakened the state’s relationship with the community (as well as members among themselves), which in the past has made great efforts to establish close contacts with state authorities. As a result, the village began to be deserted and a sense of nostalgia was created for the remaining inhabitants for the privileges that their community enjoyed during the recent socialist past.

Landscape is a place where the collapse of socialism became particularly evident: the erection of shopping malls, the removal or preservation of socialist statues, the advertisements of Western products in place of party posters

are just a few proofs that the landscape is field for recording changes, but also resistance to changes. Such issues dominate the collective volume Altering States. Ethnographies of Transition in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union edited by Daphne Berdahl, Matti Bunzl and Martha Lampland (2000). The authors present societies in the middle of a transition with an emphasis on daily life, space, landscape (especially urban) and memory. The text of Alaina Lemon on the Moscow metro, Philip Bohlman’s on the restoration of the synagogue in Budapest and Hermine De Soto’s on the reconstruction of the landscape in Saxony deal the space as a symbol of “transition” which corresponds to the memory construction. In Russia, when one wants to talk about transition (both literally and metaphorically) one refers to the metro, which sometimes refers to socialism and sometimes to capitalist development. The hammer and sickle wagons and the stations with the statues of the socialist worker remind the passengers of the socialist era, while right next to these remnants of the old regime one can see large shops but also beggars and refugees, signs of capitalism (Lemon, 2000, p. 16). The narratives about the subway, then, concern the relationship between social order and disorder, continuity and change. Similarly, Bohlman notes that the restoration of synagogues in Eastern European countries refers both to the collective past of the Jews and to the future. From the above one can easily understand that the interests of anthropologists have changed a lot. The space where they turn their focus is no longer just the rural, but also the urban, as the eminent field of recording the often contradictory effects of recent economic, political and social changes.

Ιmmigration and ethnic identities have also been research subjects. The socialist regimes projected the image of the state as a family, whose father is the Party. The members of this family are brothers and are not separated by gender, ethnicity and social class (Verdery, 1996, p. 64-66). However, according to Thomas Hylland Eriksen (2007, p. 101-102), national and ethnic identities do not disappear easily; the descendants of immigrants and refugees claim their family’s identity, even if they have never been to the country of origin of their ancestors. Consequently, ethnic differences were not eliminated during the period of socialism. In addition, after 1989 when economic migrants from neighboring former socialist countries, as well as waves of refugees from Asian and African countries began to flock to Eastern and Central European countries. Consequently, the immigration phenomenon became a resrach subject. The immigrant experiences during the movement, the networks and the contacts immigrant and refugees create in the host society with the local

population but also their relationship with the host country and its policies (in the political, economic, legal, employment and education sector), their survival strategies and the effort to preserve their national identity are some of the issues that researchers focus on.

Conclusion

To sum up I would say that the thematic range of ethnographic research carried out in the South Eastern Europe both the period of existing socialism is rather limited. Initially, the research interest was focused on the rural area and especially on communities, which resisted collectivization. Then, looking at the literature developed in the post-socialist period, a shift to new issues, concerning the individual aspects of the “transition” to capitalism and liberal democracy. Nowadays, almost 30 years after the change of the political regime, Socio- Cultural Anthropology is taught in bachelor and master degree levels in many departments (History, Sociology, Archeology and Cultural Heritage) and new researched about immigration, refugee and urban studies are organized.

Αγγελόπουλος, Γ. (1997). «Γαμήλιες Ανταλλαγές σε Πολιτισμικά Μεικτές Αγροτικές Κοινότητες της Μακεδονίας: Η σημασία τους για τον Ορισμό και τη Διάκριση των Πληθυσμιακών Κατηγοριών», in Βασίλης Κ. Γούναρης, Ιάκωβος Δ. Μιχαηλίδης και Γιώργος Β. Αγγελόπουλος (επιμ.) Ταυτότητες στη Μακεδονία, Αθήνα: Παπαζήση, 103-122. . (2003) «Το δίκτυο Coca-cola-Κασκαβάλ: Συλλογικές Αναπαραστάσεις, Συγγένεια και ‘Business’ στα Βαλκάνια», in Δήμητρα Γκέφου-Μαδιανού (επιμ.) Εαυτός και «Άλλος», Εννοιολογήσεις, Ταυτότητες και Πρακτικές στην Ελλάδα και την Κύπρο, Αθήνα: Gutenberg, 343-372. Asad, T. (1972). “Class Structure and Consent: a Reconsideration of Swat Political Οrganization”, Man 7, 74-94. Barth, F. (1969). “Introduction”, in Fredrik Barth (επιμ.) Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: The Social Organization of Difference, Oslo: Universitets Forlaget, 9-38. Berdahl, D., Bunzl M. and Lampland M. (eds). (2000). Altering States: Ethnographies of transition in Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, Ann-Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Burawoy M. and Verdery K. (1999). “Introduction”. Burawoy M. & Verdery K. (eds) Uncertain Transition: Ethnographies of Change in the Postsocialist World, Lanham, Boulder, New York and London: Rowan και Littlefield Publishers, INC, 1-17. Doja, Al. (2013) “Folkloric Archaism and Cultural Manipulation in Albania under Socialism”. Boscovic Al. and H. Chris (eds). The Anthropological Field on the Margins of Europe, Berlin: Lit-Verlag, 153-174. Hann, Ch. (2005). “Postsocialist Societies”, Carrier, J. (ed) A Handbook of Economic Anthropology, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 547-558. Hann Ch, Sárkány, M. and Skalník, P. (2005). “Introduction: Continuities and Contrasts in an Essentially Contested Field”, in Hann Ch, Sárkány, M. and Skalník, P. (eds). Studying People in the People’s Democracies: Socialist Era. Anthropology in East-Central Europe v.1, Münster: Lit Varlag, 1-20. Humphrey, C. (2002). “Does the Category ‘Postsocialist’ still Make Sense?”. Hann Ch. (ed.) Postsocialism: Ιdeals, Ideologies and Practices in Eurasia, London: Routledge, 12-15.

Kaneff, D. (2004). Who Owns the Past? The Politics of Time in a ‘Model’ Bulgarian Village, New York, Oxford: Berghahn Books. Kodra-Hysa, A. (2013) “Albanian Ethnography at the Margins of History, 1947- 1991: Documenting the Nation in Historical Materialist Terms” Boscovic Al. and Hann Ch. (eds). The Anthropological Field on the Margins of Europe, Berlin: Lit-Verlag, 128- 151. Κυριακίδου-Νέστορος, Ά. (1987). Η Θεωρία της Ελληνικής Λαογραφίας. Κριτική Ανάλυση. Αθήνα: Εταιρεία Σπουδών Νεοελληνικού Πολιτισμού και Γενικής Παιδείας, Σχολή Μωραϊτη. Petrova-Averkieva,Y. (1980). “Historicism in Soviet Ethnographic Science”, in Gellner Ernest (ed.) Soviet and Western Anthropology, New York: Columbia University Press, 19-27. Sampson, St. (1991). “Is There an Anthropology of Socialism?”, Anthropology Today 7, 1-5. Skalník P. (2002). “Politics of Social Anthropology in Czech Universities after 1989: A report by an Observing Participant”. Skalník P. (ed.) A Post-communist Millennium: the Struggles from Sociocultural Anthropology in Central and Eastern Europe, Prage: Set Out, 49-68. Tiskhov, V. A. (1992). “The Crisis in Soviet Ethnography”, Current Anthropology 33.4, 371-393. Verdery, K. (1996). What Was Socialism and What Comes Next?, Princeton: Princeton University Press. Vesna, G. (2002). “From Ethnology to Anthropology and Back Again: Negotiating the Boundaries of Ethnology and Anthropology in Post-socialist European Countries”. Skalnik P. (ed.) A Post-communist Millennium: the Struggles from Sociocultural Anthropology in Central and Eastern Europe, Prague: Set Out, 1-22. Williams, B. F. (1989). “A Class Act: Anthropology and the Race to Nation Across Ethnic Terrain”, Annual Review of Anthropology 18, 401-444.